Site Mobile Navigation

'Freedom to Farm' Law Becomes Freedom to Add Subsidies

Farmers who raise lentils, a crop so ancient it is mentioned in the Book of Genesis, have survived for years without government assistance. But Congress has decided they need a little help.

In the farm bill that President Bush signed last month, it created subsidies for lentil growers, guaranteeing them prices substantially above current levels, which are the lowest in 15 years. It provided similar guarantees for growers of small chickpeas.

So how is it possible that six years after Congress tried to wean farmers from subsidies and let the market dictate prices, a new subsidy was born?

The noble experiment in market-driven policy, the 1996 Freedom to Farm law, fell victim to powerful economic forces and election-year jockeying that catered to every region of the country.

They found a champion in Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, where farmers grow lentils and chickpeas in rotation with crops like wheat and barley, already subsidized by the government. Growers of lentils and chickpeas said it was difficult to compete with Canadian farmers because Canada had lower freight rates and better crop insurance as well as a weak currency, which makes its exports more affordable.

The farmers found allies in a half-dozen nearby states that grow lentils and chickpeas. Conservative Idaho Republicans fought for the new program, alongside liberal Minnesota Democrats.

''Every country that produces agricultural products subsidizes them in some way,'' said Senator Conrad, whose family has been in North Dakota for five generations. ''This is a little like the cold war. You have to build up to build down. If you don't fight back, you consign American farmers to failure.''

The U.S.A. Dry Pea and Lentil Council, based in Moscow, Idaho, hired a Washington lobbyist who specializes in farm issues.

The lobbyist, John D. Gordley, said: ''It's always difficult to establish a new farm program. A lot of people think we ought to get rid of these programs instead of setting up new ones.''

The lentil program is one of many subsidies and benefits sprinkled through the farm bill. Growers of ginseng, onions, apples and catfish all receive benefits. Even in a time of shrinking budget surpluses, such measures passed with little trouble.

Under the program for lentils and chickpeas, if market prices fall below levels specified in the new law, ($11.94 for 100 pounds of lentils and $7.56 for 100 pounds of chickpeas), the government will make up the difference. With these ''deficiency payments,'' farmers are assured of a certain income and can obtain the loans they need to stay in business. In the past, many lenders discouraged farmers from growing lentils and chickpeas because the government provided no price supports for them.

Representative Dan Miller, Republican of Florida, who opposed the new subsidy, said: ''Lentils make good soup. But why is the federal government getting into the subsidy business? It makes no sense to keep expanding the size and scope of the federal government.''

That sentiment, however, was relatively rare in the farm bill debate. It was more common for lawmakers to argue that the money could be better used to subsidize other crops.

In addition, Californians feared that the new subsidies, by stimulating production in the Midwest, could take business from their state. ''The new payments will result in subsidized competition against California garbanzo farmers,'' said Representative Cal Dooley, Democrat of California. (Chickpeas are often called garbanzos, especially when referring to larger ones used in salads and soups.)

As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Mr. Conrad has been a zealous advocate of fiscal discipline. But he had no apologies for the farm bill, which he expects to increase farm payments to North Dakota by 68 percent, to $676 million this year.

The Congressional Budget Office puts the cost of assistance for lentils and chickpeas at nearly $12 million a year, or $116 million over 10 years -- a pittance in a bill expected to increase farm spending by $79 billion over 10 years, to $242 billion.

Now, farmers and ranchers are coming back to Congress, seeking at least $2.3 billion in disaster assistance, mainly to cover losses caused by severe drought in the last year.

Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the senior Republican on the Agriculture Committee, questioned the need for such aid so soon after passage of the farm bill.

But Larry Barbie, president of the Montana Grain Growers Association, said, ''Without disaster assistance, many of Montana's producers won't be around to participate in the benefits of the farm bill.''

Senator Michael B. Enzi, Republican of Wyoming, said that ranchers in his state were in dire need of disaster assistance. ''What's the use of the farm bill if my farmers have been sucked dry and my farms are out of business?'' Mr. Enzi asked.

The Midwest and Great Plains states were not the only ones to benefit from the farm bill. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, secured assistance as well.

Section 10106 of the new law says, in its entirety: ''The secretary of agriculture shall use $10 million of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make a grant to the State of New York to be used to support onion producers in Orange County, N.Y., that have suffered losses to onion crops during one or more of the 1996 through 2000 crop years.''

Mr. Schumer said the overall law would also provide a ''a giant stimulus package'' for New York agriculture, with federal payments averaging $15,200 a year for each dairy farmer and $12,925 this year for each apple grower.

Other provisions of the new law benefit ginseng growers in Wisconsin; catfish growers in Arkansas and Louisiana; and the John Hancock Life Insurance Company, the biggest owner of peanut-growing licenses.

Ginseng, used for centuries as a folk medicine in China, has gained new popularity in the United States. Wisconsin produces 97 percent of the ginseng grown in this country, and its high-quality product commands a premium in world markets.

Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, said plant products imported from Asia had been mislabeled as ginseng root when, in fact, they came from a bush of a different species.

The farm bill stipulates that products may not be labeled or advertised as ginseng unless they are derived from a particular type of plant. It prohibits use of the term ''Siberian ginseng,'' which refers to a bush of a different species.

''Ginseng is a root, not a bush,'' Mr. Feingold said. ''Consumers have a right to know that when they reach for a high-quality ginseng product, they are buying just that -- ginseng, not some ground-up bush.''

Another provision of the farm bill, which generated intense debate, says that food labels must show the country of origin for most meat, fish, fruit and vegetables.

Senator Tim Johnson, Democrat of South Dakota, and Representative Mary Bono, Republican of California, insisted on this requirement, saying that if American consumers had a choice, they would buy meat and produce from the United States.

The Grocery Manufacturers of America and the National Food Processors Association opposed the requirement as a form of protectionism, saying it would raise costs without providing consumers any useful information about food safety.

When it became clear that Congress would adopt some requirement, food companies lobbied successfully for an exemption to make clear that they did not have to identify the source of every ingredient in a can of soup or a frozen pizza.

''The tomatoes, meat, spinach and cheese in frozen lasagna could come from 16 different countries,'' said Michael D. Gill, vice president of the American Frozen Food Institute.